Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Multi-object operational tasks for measurement incompatibility

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that a player using both a quantum state and a set of measurements obtains an advantage in discrimination and exclusion games that factorises exactly into the resource quantifiers of the two objects.

desk verdict Solid extension of single-object resource games to POVM-set pairs; main caveat is that Eq. (8) is a supremum, not an attained max. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15615 v1 pith:PW252BKJ submitted 2024-12-20 quant-ph

Andrés F. Ducuara , Ryo Takakura , Fernando J. Hernandez , Cristian E. Susa This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P15
keywords measurementincompatibilitymulti-objectoperationaltaskssubchanneldiscriminationexclusiongamesgeneralisedrobustnessweightofresourcegeneralprobabilistictheoriesjointmeasurability
topics The Measurement Problem
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that the usefulness of a quantum state and a set of measurements used together can be measured exactly. It introduces multi-object subchannel discrimination and exclusion games with prior information, in which one player controls both a state and a POVM set. The central result is that the best possible advantage over all fully free pairs factorises: in discrimination games the maximum success-probability ratio equals the product of the generalised robustnesses of the two objects, while in exclusion games the minimum error-probability ratio equals the product of their weights of resource. Because measurement incompatibility is a resource of POVM sets closed under classical pre- and post-processing, the result applies directly to incompatible measurements: every incompatible set, together with any state, becomes useful for some such game. The same statements hold in general probabilistic theories, so the quantification is not an artifact of the quantum formalism.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the multi-object quantum subchannel discrimination and exclusion game with prior information, in which the referee applies an instrument to the player's state, sends the post-measurement state and the instrument label to the player, and the player then uses a POVM set with classical pre- and post-processing to guess the subchannel outcome (discrimination) or to avoid it (exclusion). The proof machinery is conic-programming duality: the generalised robustness and the weight of resource admit dual characterisations as optimisations over positive operators, and the achievability arguments use the optimal dual witnesses to define instrument sets that fully free players cannot simulate well. Closure of the free POVM-set family under simulability is what lets coarse-grained versions of free POVM sets remain free, a step essential to the upper bounds.

What would settle it

Compute the left and right sides of Eq. (8) for a specific pair $(\rho, M_{A|X})$ and a finite set of subchannel games by semidefinite programming: if any game yields a ratio larger than $[1+R_F(\rho)][1+R_F(M_{A|X})]$, the upper-bound theorem is false. The same check can be run with a free set that is not closed under simulability to test whether the closure assumption is genuinely required.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Result 1 states that for any state $\rho$ and POVM set $M_{A|X}$, the maximum over all subchannel discrimination games with prior information of the ratio between the success probability of the player using $(\rho, M_{A|X})$ and the best fully free pair equals $[1+R_F(\rho)][1+R_F(M_{A|X})]$. Result 2 states the exclusion analogue: the minimum error-probability ratio equals $[1-W_F(\rho)][1-W_F(M_{A|X})]$, with the weight of resource replacing the generalised robustness. Result 3 extends both formulas to general probabilistic theories, with states, measurement sets, instruments, and resource quantifiers rephrased in GPT terms. The proofs construct explicit games that saturate the bounds: for discrimination, dual feasible operators $Z_\rho$ and $\{Z_{a|x}\}$ are used to build an instrument set with $J$ extra subchannels and the limit $J\to\infty$ is taken; for exclusion, operators $Y_\rho$ and $\{Y_{a|x}\}$ build a game with one extra subchannel. The free set of POVM sets is assumed closed under classical pre- and post-processing, so coarse-graining a free POVM set yields a free POVM set; under this closure, the resource quantifiers coincide exactly with the operational advantage.

Load-bearing premise

The free family of POVM sets must be closed under classical pre- and post-processing, so that any classical relabelling or merging of outcomes of a free measurement set is again free; the GPT extension additionally works with positive maps rather than completely positive ones.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every partially or fully resourceful pair wins some subchannel discrimination game with a ratio exactly $[1+R_F(\rho)][1+R_F(M_{A|X})]$ over all fully free pairs.
  • If only the measurement set is resourceful, the advantage reduces to $[1+R_F(M_{A|X})]$, recovering the earlier single-object incompatibility bound.
  • In exclusion games, the same pair beats all fully free pairs by the factor $[1-W_F(\rho)][1-W_F(M_{A|X})]$ in error probability.
  • The formulas hold for any state resource and any measurement-set resource closed under classical pre- and post-processing, so incompatibility is one instance among many.
  • The same multiplicative quantification holds in any general probabilistic theory satisfying the no-restriction hypothesis, making the result theory-independent.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the two factors multiply, the pair's advantage decomposes into independent contributions from each object; a natural composite monotone would be $R_F(\rho)+R_F(M_{A|X})+R_F(\rho)R_F(M_{A|X})$.
  • The discrimination proof requires infinitely many extra subchannels ($J\to\infty$) while the exclusion proof needs only one; a finite-$J$ analysis would give explicit rates of approach and potentially experimentally accessible approximate versions of the result.
  • Interpreting these games as betting or expected-utility tasks could extend the multiplicative robustness and weight formulas to decision-theoretic settings, linking resource quantifiers to utility.
  • Testing the bound in a measurement-set resource theory that is not closed under classical post-processing, such as POVMs with a fixed noise parameter that coarse-graining can reduce, would pinpoint exactly where the closure assumption binds.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces multi-object subchannel discrimination and exclusion games with prior information, in which a player simultaneously uses a quantum state and a POVM set. The central claim is that the maximal over-games ratio of the success probability against the best fully free pair equals [1+R_F(ρ)][1+R_F(M_{A|X})] for discrimination games (Result 1, Eq. (8)), and that the minimal over-games ratio of the error probability equals [1-W_F(ρ)][1-W_F(M_{A|X})] for exclusion games (Result 2, Eq. (17)). These results are stated for arbitrary state resources and arbitrary POVM-set resources closed under classical pre- and post-processing, with measurement incompatibility as a special case, and Result 3 extends both statements to general probabilistic theories. The proofs rely on conic-programming duality, with upper bounds derived from the primal problems and achievability from explicit games built from dual optimal witnesses.

Significance. If the stated equalities hold, the paper provides a clean multiplicative operational interpretation of generalized robustness and weight for pairs consisting of a state and a measurement set, unifying and generalizing the single-object results of Refs. [41-43] and the state-measurement pair results of Ref. [47]. The extension to GPTs, modulo the acknowledged restriction to positive maps, broadens the scope and is likely to be of interest to the resource-theory community. The appendix proofs are detailed and largely checkable, with explicit dual witnesses and game constructions, and the results include the qualitative consequence that every resourceful pair is useful in some finite discrimination or exclusion game. The technical corrections identified below concern the precise formulation of the discrimination result, not the main proof strategy.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section IV (Result 1, Eq. (8)) and Appendix B; also Result 3, Eq. (25) and Appendix D] The equality in Eq. (8) is stated as a maximum over games, but the proof only establishes a supremum. The constructed instrument Ψ^{(ρ,M_{A|X},p_X,J)}_{B|Y} has l+J outcomes, and for every finite J the derivation gives a free-player success probability ≤ α + 1/J (Appendix B, around Eqs. (B6)-(B9)) and a resourceful-player success probability ≥ α[1+R_F(ρ)][1+R_F(M_{A|X})] (Eq. (B10)). The resulting finite-J ratio is therefore strictly below the right-hand side by the factor (1+1/(αJ))^{-1}. The proof then takes J→∞, which is outside the class of games defined in Section III because the outcome set B={1,...,m} is required to be finite. Eq. (8) should be restated with a supremum over finite games, or the game definition should be extended to countably infinite outcome sets with a precise limiting argument. The same issue affects the discrimination part of Result 3, Eq. (25), and the corresponding proof in Appendix D. The qualitative claim that a resourceful pair is useful survives, since for any fixed resourceful pair the ratio exceeds 1 for sufficiently large finite J, but the exact multiplicative quantification is only approached, not attained.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Appendix B, Eq. (B3)] The notation for the coarse-graining operation is confusing: the definition uses parameters K and N, while the application requires coarse-graining a POVM with l+J outcomes to one with l outcomes. Please rewrite the definition directly in terms of l and J to match the use in the proof.
  2. [Appendix B, Eq. (B2)] The upper-bound chain contains malformed expressions, in particular the term 'Ma|x \Ñ^*_{a|x}' and the subsequent 'max_{≈} \Ñ_{B|Y} ≺ \Ñ^*_{A|X}'. The intended step is to replace M_{a|x} by the free POVM set N^*_{A|X} from the robustness decomposition; please rewrite this chain with unambiguous notation.
  3. [Results 1-3 statements] The formal statements of Results 1 and 2 (and of Result 3 for the GPT case) do not include the hypothesis that the free family of POVM sets is closed under classical pre- and post-processing. This condition appears in the text before Eq. (7) and is used essentially in the achievability proofs (Appendix B, Eq. (B3); Appendix C, Eq. (C6)). Please add it explicitly to the theorem statements.
  4. [Appendix A and Section II] There is a typo 'Slatter's condition' that should read 'Slater's condition', and 'refereed' in Section II should be 'referred'.
  5. [Section V and Result 3] The GPT formulation uses positive maps rather than completely positive maps as (sub)channels. The text acknowledges this caveat, but the statement of Result 3 should repeat it, since the quantum Results 1 and 2 are formulated with CP instruments.
  6. [Eq. (3)] The summation in Eq. (3) includes an index µ that is not defined or used in the rest of the expression; the corresponding sum in Appendix A, Eq. (A1), correctly uses z. Please remove the stray index or define it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the advantage ratios are operationally defined and the resource quantifiers are characterized via standard dual conic programs; self-citations are contextual only.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (Eqs. 8, 17, 25, 26) equate an operational advantage ratio with a resource quantifier. The quantifiers R_F and W_F are defined in Eqs. (5)-(6) by convex decompositions with respect to a free set, with no reference to games. The game success probabilities, Eqs. (3)-(4), are defined via arbitrary instruments and classical pre/post-processing strategies, with no reference to R_F or W_F. The proofs then proceed in two directions: the universal upper/lower bound uses only positivity of subchannels and the defining inequalities of the quantifiers, while the achievability direction constructs a single game from the dual optimal witnesses of the quantifiers (Appendix B, Eq. (B5); Appendix C, Eq. (C5)). This is standard Lagrangian-duality tightness, not circularity: the quantifier is not defined by, nor fitted to, the game, and the constructed game is a legitimate operational task whose ratio is then shown to saturate the bound. The closure of the free POVM-set family under classical pre/post-processing is an explicit hypothesis, used at Eq. (B3) to keep coarse-grained POVM sets free; it is stated in Theorem hypotheses and holds for measurement incompatibility. Self-citations ([47], [67], and comparisons to [41-43]) are used for context and recovery of prior special cases, not as proof load; the appended proofs are self-contained. The only notable caveats are non-circular: the achievability in Result 1 uses J→∞, so Eq. (8) is strictly a supremum over finite games (Section IV proof sketch after Eq. (11) and Appendix B around Eq. (B9)), and the GPT extension uses positivity rather than complete positivity, as acknowledged in Section V. These are correctness/scope concerns, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard conic-programming duality and on the free-set closure conditions for states and POVM sets. No new physical entities are introduced. The most load-bearing assumption is that the free POVM sets are closed under simulability, which the authors explicitly assume and which is needed for the achievability constructions.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Finite-dimensional Hilbert space formalism for states, POVMs, instruments and subchannels.
    Used throughout Section II and appendices; the paper works in finite dimension so all operator topologies coincide and strong duality holds.
  • domain assumption The free set of states F is a closed convex cone intersected with the trace-one hyperplane.
    Section IV, Eqs. (5)-(6); this is the standard resource-theoretic structure required for the conic programs of robustness and weight.
  • domain assumption The free set of POVM sets F is closed under classical pre- and post-processing (simulability).
    Section IV and Appendix B (B3); the achievability proof relies on coarse-graining a free POVM set into another free POVM set. This is true for incompatibility but not for every resource theory of measurements.
  • standard math Strong duality holds for the conic programs defining robustness and weight.
    Lemma 1 and Appendix A; verified by Slater's condition, e.g., Z_{a|x}=1/(2dκ) is strictly feasible.
  • domain assumption GPTs satisfy the no-restriction hypothesis and only positivity of maps is required.
    Section V; the GPT extension assumes effect space is the full dual cone and does not enforce complete positivity, so the quantum case is only recovered for a restricted subset of channels.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-object operational tasks for measurement incompatibility." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PW252BKJ

@misc{pith2026241215615,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-object operational tasks for measurement incompatibility},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PW252BKJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15615}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce multi-object operational tasks for measurement incompatibility in the form of multi-object quantum subchannel discrimination and exclusion games with prior information, where a player can simultaneously harness the resources contained within both a quantum state and a set of measurements. We show that any fully or partially resourceful pair of objects is useful for a suitably chosen multi-object subchannel discrimination and exclusion game with prior information. The advantage provided by a fully or partially resourceful object against all possible fully free objects in such a game can be quantified in a multiplicative manner by the resource quantifiers of generalised robustness and weight of resource for discrimination and exclusion games, respectively. These results hold for arbitrary properties of quantum states as well as for arbitrary properties of sets of measurements closed under classical pre and post-processing and, consequently, include measurement incompatibility as a particular case. We furthermore show that these results are not exclusive to quantum theory, but that can also be extended to the realm of general probabilistic theories.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15615 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Classical pre-processing (CPreP) and post [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Multi-object quantum subchannel discrimination [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Strict hierarchy between $n$-wise measurement simulability, compatibility structures, and multi-copy compatibility

    quant-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The paper orders all known generalizations of measurement incompatibility in a strict chain of inclusions, with n-wise compatible assemblages as the convex hull of n-simulable ones, strictly inside n-copy jointly meas...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [47]

    A. F. Ducuara, P. Lipka-Bartosik, and P. Skrzypczyk, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033374 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [1]

    Chitambar and G

    E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 025001 (2019)

    2019

  3. [2]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, S. Popescu, B. Schumacher, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 722 (1996)

    1996

  4. [3]

    C. H. Bennett, H. J. Bernstein, S. Popescu, and B. Schu- macher, Phys. Rev. A 53, 2046 (1996)

    1996

  5. [4]

    Oszmaniec, L

    M. Oszmaniec, L. Guerini, P. Wittek, and A. Ac ´ ın, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 190501 (2017)

    2017

  6. [5]

    Oszmaniec and T

    M. Oszmaniec and T. Biswas, Quantum 3, 133 (2019)

    2019

  7. [6]

    T. Guff, N. A. McMahon, Y. R. Sanders, and A. Gilchrist, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 54, 225301 (2021)

    2021

  8. [7]

    Winter and D

    A. Winter and D. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 120404 (2016)

    2016

Show all 91 references
  1. [8]

    Theurer, N

    T. Theurer, N. Killoran, D. Egloff, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 230401 (2017)

    2017

  2. [9]

    Streltsov, H

    A. Streltsov, H. Kampermann, S. W¨ olk, M. Gessner, and D. Bruß, New Journal of Physics 20, 053058 (2018)

    2018

  3. [10]

    Howard and E

    M. Howard and E. Campbell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 090501 (2017)

    2017

  4. [11]

    Takagi and Q

    R. Takagi and Q. Zhuang, Phys. Rev. A 97, 062337 (2018)

    2018

  5. [12]

    Bhattacharya, B

    S. Bhattacharya, B. Bhattacharya, and A. S. Majumdar, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 54, 035302 (2020)

    2020

  6. [13]

    Operational resource theory of non- markovianity,

    E. Wakakuwa, “Operational resource theory of non- markovianity,” (2017), arXiv:1709.07248

    2017 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Quantifying non- markovianity: a quantum resource-theoretic approach,

    N. Anand and T. A. Brun, “Quantifying non- markovianity: a quantum resource-theoretic approach,” (2019), arXiv:1903.03880

    2019 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Resource theory of quantum thermodynamics: Thermal operations and sec- ond laws,

    N. H. Y. Ng and M. P. Woods, “Resource theory of quantum thermodynamics: Thermal operations and sec- ond laws,” in Thermodynamics in the Quantum Regime: Fundamental Aspects and New Directions , edited by F. Binder, L. A. Correa, C. Gogolin, J. Anders, and G. Adesso (Springer I...

  9. [16]

    Gour and R

    G. Gour and R. W. Spekkens, New Journal of Physics 10, 033023 (2008)

    2008

  10. [17]

    Skrzypczyk and N

    P. Skrzypczyk and N. Linden, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 140403 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Heinosaari, T

    T. Heinosaari, T. Miyadera, and M. Ziman, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 49, 123001 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    G¨ uhne, E

    O. G¨ uhne, E. Haapasalo, T. Kraft, J.-P. Pellonp¨ a¨ a, and R. Uola, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 011003 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    J. I. de Vicente, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 47, 424017 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Amaral, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Soci- ety A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 377, 20190010 (2019)

    B. Amaral, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Soci- ety A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 377, 20190010 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Gallego and L

    R. Gallego and L. Aolita, Phys. Rev. X 5, 041008 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    ˇSupi´ c, P

    I. ˇSupi´ c, P. Skrzypczyk, and D. Cavalcanti, Phys. Rev. A 99, 032334 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Resource theories of quan- tum channels and the universal role of resource erasure,

    Z.-W. Liu and A. Winter, “Resource theories of quan- tum channels and the universal role of resource erasure,” (2019), arXiv:1904.04201

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Liu and X

    Y. Liu and X. Yuan, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 012035 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Theurer, D

    T. Theurer, D. Egloff, L. Zhang, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 190405 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    Pirandola, R

    S. Pirandola, R. Laurenza, C. Ottaviani, and L. Banchi, Nature Communications 8, 15043 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Wolfe, D

    E. Wolfe, D. Schmid, A. B. Sainz, R. Kunjwal, and R. W. Spekkens, Quantum 4, 280 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Schmid, D

    D. Schmid, D. Rosset, and F. Buscemi, Quantum 4, 262 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Schmid, J

    D. Schmid, J. H. Selby, E. Wolfe, R. Kunjwal, and R. W. 9 Spekkens, PRX Quantum 2, 010331 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Rosset, D

    D. Rosset, D. Schmid, and F. Buscemi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 210402 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Brunner, D

    N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V. Scarani, and S. Wehner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 419 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    Cavalcanti and P

    D. Cavalcanti and P. Skrzypczyk, Reports on Progress in Physics 80, 024001 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    R. Uola, A. C. S. Costa, H. C. Nguyen, and O. G¨ uhne, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 015001 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    Scarani, Bell Nonlocality , Oxford Graduate Texts (Oxford University Press, 2019)

    V. Scarani, Bell Nonlocality , Oxford Graduate Texts (Oxford University Press, 2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    M. T. Quintino, C. Budroni, E. Woodhead, A. Cabello, and D. Cavalcanti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 180401 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    S.-L. Chen, N. Miklin, C. Budroni, and Y.-N. Chen, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 023143 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Sarkar, D

    S. Sarkar, D. Saha, and R. Augusiak, Phys. Rev. A 106, L040402 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    D. Saha, D. Das, A. K. Das, B. Bhattacharya, and A. S. Majumdar, Phys. Rev. A 107, 062210 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Skrzypczyk, I

    P. Skrzypczyk, I. ˇSupi´ c, and D. Cavalcanti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 130403 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    Carmeli, T

    C. Carmeli, T. Heinosaari, and A. Toigo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 130402 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    R. Uola, T. Kraft, J. Shang, X.-D. Yu, and O. G¨ uhne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 130404 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    K. Sen, S. Halder, and U. Sen, Phys. Rev. A 109, 012415 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Buscemi, E

    F. Buscemi, E. Chitambar, and W. Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 120401 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Ji and E

    K. Ji and E. Chitambar, PRX Quantum5, 010340 (2024)

    2024

  39. [48]

    Resource theory of absolute negativity,

    R. Salazar, J. Czartowski, and A. de Oliveira Ju- nior, “Resource theory of absolute negativity,” (2022), arXiv:2205.13480

    2022 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Sparaciari, L

    C. Sparaciari, L. del Rio, C. M. Scandolo, P. Faist, and J. Oppenheim, Quantum 4, 259 (2020)

    2020

  41. [50]

    Quan- tum resource theories beyond convexity,

    R. Salazar, J. Czartowski, R. R. Rodr ` ıguez, G. Rajchel- Mieldzio´ c, P. Horodecki, and K. ˙Zyczkowski, “Quan- tum resource theories beyond convexity,” (2024), arXiv:2405.05785

    2024 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Hardy, (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0101012

    L. Hardy, (2001), arXiv:quant-ph/0101012

    2001 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Barnum, J

    H. Barnum, J. Barrett, M. Leifer, and A. Wilce, Physical Review Letters 99, 240501 (2007)

    2007

  44. [53]

    Barnum, J

    H. Barnum, J. Barrett, M. Leifer, and A. Wilce, in Pro- ceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics , Vol. 71 (2012) pp. 25–48

    2012

  45. [54]

    Barrett, Physical Review A 75, 032304 (2007)

    J. Barrett, Physical Review A 75, 032304 (2007)

    2007

  46. [55]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, Physical Review A 81, 062348 (2010)

    2010

  47. [56]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, Physical Review A 84, 012311 (2011)

    2011

  48. [57]

    Masanes and M

    L. Masanes and M. P. M¨ uller, New Journal of Physics 13, 063001 (2011)

    2011

  49. [58]

    Guerini, J

    L. Guerini, J. Bavaresco, M. T. Cunha, and A. Ac ´ ın, Journal of Mathematical Physics 58, 092102 (2017)

    2017

  50. [59]

    Busch, P

    P. Busch, P. J. Lahti, J.-P. Pellonp¨ a¨ a, and K. Ylinen, Quantum Measurement , Theoretical and Mathematical Physics (Springer International Publishing, 2016)

    2016

  51. [60]

    Heinosaari and M

    T. Heinosaari and M. Ziman, The Mathematical Lan- guage of Quantum Theory: From Uncertainty to Entan- glement (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011)

    2011

  52. [61]

    Carmeli, T

    C. Carmeli, T. Heinosaari, and A. Toigo, Phys. Rev. A 98, 012126 (2018)

    2018

  53. [62]

    G¨ artner and J

    B. G¨ artner and J. Matousek,Approximation Algorithms and Semidefinite Programming (Springer Berlin Heidel- berg, 2012)

    2012

  54. [63]

    Norms and cones in the theory of quantum entanglement,

    N. Johnston, “Norms and cones in the theory of quantum entanglement,” (2012), arXiv:1207.1479

    2012 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Bratteli and D

    O. Bratteli and D. W. Robinson, Operator Algebras and Quantum Statistical Mechanics 1: C*- and W*- Algebras Symmetry Groups Decomposition of States, 2nd ed., Texts and Monographs in Physics (Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 1987)

    1987

  56. [65]

    H. H. Schaefer, Topological Vector Spaces, 2nd ed., Grad- uate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 3 (Springer-Verlag New York, 1999)

    1999

  57. [66]

    Takagi, B

    R. Takagi, B. Regula, K. Bu, Z.-W. Liu, and G. Adesso, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 140402 (2019)

    2019

  58. [67]

    Takagi and B

    R. Takagi and B. Regula, Phys. Rev. X 9, 031053 (2019)

    2019

  59. [68]

    A. F. Ducuara and P. Skrzypczyk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 110401 (2020)

    2020

  60. [69]

    R. Uola, T. Bullock, T. Kraft, J.-P. Pellonp¨ a¨ a, and N. Brunner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 110402 (2020)

    2020

  61. [70]

    Lami, Non-classical correlations in quantum mechan- ics and beyond , Ph.D

    L. Lami, Non-classical correlations in quantum mechan- ics and beyond , Ph.D. thesis, Universitat Aut` onoma de Barcelona (2017)

    2017

  62. [71]

    Pl´ avala, Physics Reports1033, 1 (2023)

    M. Pl´ avala, Physics Reports1033, 1 (2023)

    2023

  63. [72]

    Takakura, Convexity and uncertainty in operational quantum foundations , Ph.D

    R. Takakura, Convexity and uncertainty in operational quantum foundations , Ph.D. thesis, Kyoto University (2022)

    2022

  64. [73]

    J. B. Conway, A Course in Functional Analysis , 1st ed., Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 96 (Springer-Verlag New York, 1985)

    1985

  65. [74]

    Aubrun, L

    G. Aubrun, L. Lami, C. Palazuelos, and M. Pl´ avala, Geometric and Functional Analysis 31, 181 (2021)

    2021

  66. [75]

    Kuroiwa, R

    K. Kuroiwa, R. Takagi, G. Adesso, and H. Yamasaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 150201 (2024)

    2024

  67. [76]

    Kuroiwa, R

    K. Kuroiwa, R. Takagi, G. Adesso, and H. Yamasaki, Phys. Rev. A 109, 042403 (2024)

    2024

  68. [77]

    Schluck, G

    J. Schluck, G. Murta, H. Kampermann, D. Bruß, and N. Wyderka, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 56, 255303 (2023)

    2023

  69. [78]

    A. F. Ducuara and P. Skrzypczyk, PRX Quantum 3, 020366 (2022)

    2022

  70. [79]

    Fundamental connec- tions between utility theories of wealth and information theory,

    A. F. Ducuara and P. Skrzypczyk, “Fundamental connec- tions between utility theories of wealth and information theory,” (2023), arXiv:2306.07975

    2023 arXiv

  71. [80]

    Lepp¨ aj¨ arvi and M

    L. Lepp¨ aj¨ arvi and M. Sedl´ ak, Quantum8, 1246 (2024)

    2024

  72. [81]

    Lepp¨ aj¨ arvi and M

    L. Lepp¨ aj¨ arvi and M. Sedl´ ak, Phys. Rev. A103, 022615 (2021)

    2021

  73. [82]

    Mitra and M

    A. Mitra and M. Farkas, Phys. Rev. A 105, 052202 (2022)

    2022

  74. [83]

    Mitra and M

    A. Mitra and M. Farkas, Phys. Rev. A 107, 032217 (2023)

    2023

  75. [84]

    Mitra, D

    A. Mitra, D. Saha, S. Bhattacharya, and A. S. Majum- dar, Phys. Rev. A 109, 062213 (2024)

    2024

  76. [85]

    Mori, Phys

    J. Mori, Phys. Rev. A 101, 032331 (2020)

    2020

  77. [86]

    G. M. D’Ariano, P. Perinotti, and A. Tosini, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 55, 394006 (2022)

    2022

  78. [87]

    Heinosaari and T

    T. Heinosaari and T. Miyadera, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 50, 135302 (2017)

    2017

  79. [88]

    Yamada and T

    M. Yamada and T. Miyadera, Phys. Rev. A 110, 062210 (2024)

    2024

  80. [89]

    F. G. S. L. Brand˜ ao, Phys. Rev. A72, 022310 (2005)

    2005

  81. [90]

    Wilde, Quantum Information Theory (Cambridge 10 University Press, 2017)

    M. Wilde, Quantum Information Theory (Cambridge 10 University Press, 2017)

    2017

  82. [91]

    E. M. Alfsen, Compact Convex Sets and Boundary Inte- grals, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebi- ete, Vol. 57 (Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 1971). Appendix A: Preliminaries Consider a set of POVMs MA|X := {Ma|x}, Ma|x ≥ 0, ∀a, x, P a Ma|x = 1, ∀x, x = 1, ..., κ...

    1971

  83. [92]

    X a,x,µ p(b|a, y, µ) p(x|y, µ) p(µ) Ma|x ! Φb|y(σ) # p(y) ≤ h 1 + RF(ρ) ih 1 + RF(MA|X ) i max σ∈F max S X b,y Tr

    Similarly, for the second primal constraints consider g(QA|X ) ≥ 0, ∀QA|X ∈ F(H)◦. Let us now construct the Lagrangian: L OA|X , ZA|X , MA|X := 1 κ D OA|X , x,a ⊕ ρ0 E − OA|X − MA|X , ZA|X − Z QA|X ∈F(H)◦ dQ g(QA|X ) OA|X , QA|X (A15) = MA|X , ZA|X + OA|X , 1 κ x,a ⊕ ρ0 − ZA|X...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.